While most EU leaders fret about what will happen to the grand European project if French voters reject the Constitution on May 29, Economist Europe Editor Bruce Clark explained why the ‘newspaper’, as its employees like to call it, has argued that the best place for the EU Constitution is in the bin.
When the Constitution was first being debated, the Economist had argued that it should be short and clear.
A guest article by Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had said that it should be small enough to put in his pocket.
The English version of the constitution eventually signed by member states is 324 pages long.
Speaking at a panel discussion organised by the Economist magazine last Thursday, Clark said, “It didn’t in our opinion produce the clarity that was needed. It didn’t clarify the roles of the various European institutions as we thought desirable”.
“It didn’t in our opinion produce the clarity that was needed. It didn’t clarify the roles of the various European institutions as we thought desirable”.
the Economist would also have liked to see a clear procedure for “re-devolving certain power from Brussels to national governments”.
The Economist was also concerned about the incorporation of the Charter on Fundamental Rights on the Constitution.
“It included some quite detailed prescriptions about social and economic policy which we thought was frankly best decided by democratic procedure on a case by case basis and not set out in a constitutional manner.”
As a London-based magazine with only 20% circulation in the UK and 60% in North America, Clark said that its stance on the Charter had been influenced by the abuse of power of the British trade unions in the 1970s.
Start again from scratch
In mid-2004, the Economist recommended that the member states start all over again–something which they may have to do if the French vote No as opinion polls suggest they will.
“Simply because the document had taken a long time to prepare, because many people had worked on it because it is a complex and delicate affair, and the product of many years, that didn’t meant it should be approved. I think that’s a sentiment that people in Cyprus can understand very well,” said Clark.
